Before the 1990’s, water there was governed as a resource of
the people but was distributed poorly and inefficiently. Starting in the mid
1990’s, Ghana increased its focus on providing water infrastructure to more
rural developments. Under the administration of Jerry Rawlings, president of
Ghana from 1993-2001, the government was concerned with finding ways to ensure
that was distribution was fair and equitable, especially to the rural
populations of the country.
The Water Resources Commission Act
of 1996 created the Water Resources Commission (WRC) that used an integrated
water resources management (IWRM) framework for resolving water-based infrastructure
decisions. Later, the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) was
created to support local communities with rural water supply and sanitation (WaterAid,
2005). Under this IWRM framework, politics was concerned
with ensuring all actors and shareholders with a stake in a water project were
taken into consideration when making community plans to provide water
improvements for the people.
Figure 1: List of Notable Policy Changes Regarding Water
in Ghana (Oteng-Ababio,
et al., 2017)
Following the growing popularity of neoliberal approaches to
water development in Africa, Ghana made strong changes in the politics of their
water management systems in 1998 when the Ghana Water and Sewage Corporation
(GWSC) was broken apart and the Ghana Water Company Ltd. (GWCL) and Community
Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) were created (Agyenim
and Gupta, 2012).
This change in Ghana has been dominated by political institutions
that prioritize neoliberal and western ideologies of development. Although
Ghana has been largely successful using a model of private sector
participation, this may not be the only solution requisite for distributing water
to its growing population. For instance, a growing number of the rural poor are
not getting access to improved water sources because multinational companies
are unable to find it profitable in distributing to these communities. In the
early 2000’s, many countries pulled back on investments that they found unprofitable;
Vivendi and Saur both “stated that they will only participate in investments
where consumers can pay enough to generate a ‘fair’ profit or where governments
guarantee this level of profit” (Whitfield,
2007).
There are concerns that the introduction of private sector
participation was, and continues to be, done in a manner that is unequitable to
all and indicative of political corruption. Yeboah,
2006 asserts that the “the Eurocentrism surrounding Ghana’s water
privatization does not originate with Western technocrats but with Ghanaian
elite decisionmakers.” The author expresses concerns that politicians in Ghana
are more concerned with following western ideologies for development,
especially in terms of promoting private sector participation in order to
employ World Bank funds, and that a realistic search for the best methods of solving
the water problem in Ghana is not truly being explored in depth.
Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that even though
access to clean water has greatly improved across the country, the improvements
have primarily occurred with certain groups, namely the urban middle and upper classes. In a 2010 report by the World Health Organization on African countries and their successes or failures in providing improved water sources, access to improved water sources in Ghana increased from 56 to 89%, reducing the gap from 44 to 11%, significantly outpacing the improvements of other African countries (World Health Organization, 2010). However, if you look to see where most of the water infrastructure improvements have
been made, research “shows that the progress bypassed those who occupied the
lowest ebb of the economic ladder located in disadvantaged communities creating
pockets of chronic water stress areas with periphery conditions being more
pronounced” (Oteng-Ababio,
et al., 2017). Other researchers are concerned that not only are the urban
poor not getting access to clean water, but that in many cases they may be
paying more for it, whilst receiving water that is of lower quality (Owusu-Mensah, 2017).
This is no surprise that the urban poor and rural people are
given unfair distribution of water resources in Ghana, as Morinville and
Harris, 2014 finds that local community participation in water management
is very low for the country, and that a lower proportion of people are involved
in making community decisions for water infrastructure there than in comparable
African countries.
Because of this, many groups are calling for greater
inclusion of local people and overall participation in the decision-making process
surround water projects. For instance, the National Coalition Against Water
Privatization in Ghana works to “promote public delivery, ownership and management
through community participation to ensure equity and equal right to potable
water and also advocate for constitutional reform to make water a right” (Whitfield,
2007).
Because of this, many groups are calling for greater
inclusion of local people and overall participation in the decision-making process
surround water projects. For instance, the National Coalition Against Water
Privatization in Ghana works to “promote public delivery, ownership and management
through community participation to ensure equity and equal right to potable
water and also advocate for constitutional reform to make water a right” (Whitfield,
2007). This group has worked hard towards this end ever since the private
sector increased its role in water politics in Ghana at the turn of the 21st
century. The group has only been partly successful and relies greatly on the
strong efforts of a few people, but it plays an important role in the
opposition voice of private sector participation within the country.
In summary, water development in Ghana has been mostly successful,
at least more successful than other sub-Saharan Africa countries. However,
there remains questions of how equitable the distribution of water is within
the country as it relates to private sector distribution choices. Going
forward, it may be that private sector may not be the best answer for rural communities,
and a more localized approach of community water management may continue to
grow in popularity.
Obviously private sector intervention to help solve the water crisis isn't enough to ensure equitable access. Do you think that there is a perfect medium where subsidies to private companies equal to the cost of providing water to poorer citizens publicly may be a better solution to lower costs in the long run?
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly been discussed by development think tanks. However, subsidies to companies are normally issued by the central government, which receives its tax revenues from local jurisdictions. Its been calculated by certain economists that levying a tax in certain growing countries, like Kenya, may provide a means for further water infrastructure investment. However, the model does not necessarily work in countries with low federal tax budget. Also, politically it is a good bit questionable. In areas where towns do not necessarily trust federal government, nor international private water companies, they are more likely to want to keep funds in their own community. So subsidies to private water companies can certainly work, but I think it functions smoother in urban, wealthier areas and less in poor, rural areas. Thanks!
ReplyDelete